In online debates, sometimes I notice revisionists making big mistakes. A notable example is when a false "confession" is posted, one of the first reactions is to suggest that the individual in question was tortured. It is of course a fact that some German "confessions" were given after they were tortured (check related links at the bottom for examples) but it is incorrect to assume that is the only explanation for false confessions, or even the most likely one. Torture is just one of many possible explanations as to why a person would confess to a crime they didn't commit. The following articles provide additional insight on the prevalence of false confessions, and the reasons behind them.

"A free and voluntary confession is deserving of the highest credit, because it is presumed to flow from the strongest sense of guilt… but a confession forced from the mind of the accused by flattery of hope or by torture of fear, comes in so questionable a shape when it is to be considered as the evidence of guilt, that no credit ought to be given to it, and therefore it is rejected."

These articles explain that between 1/5 to 1/4 of criminal exonerations using DNA evidence involved people that "confessed" to a crime that they did not actually commit. Modern police interrogation methods have been criticized for resulting in false confessions, and it is not a stretch to assume that this was even worse in the past. People confess to crimes they didn't commit for various reasons, some examples: to escape a stressful situation, to receive a more lenient punishment, because they believe they will be rewarded, because they think it will benefit them in the short-term, etc.

Despite the aforementioned issues, confessions are usually treated as a sort of "smoking gun" in criminal court cases. This alone would provide a powerful motive for vengeful, crooked prosecutors to employ whatever methods possible to acquire a fake "confession." Keep in mind also that these findings are in regards to the United States court system, which although flawed in many ways is certainly more fair and just than the "War crimes tribunals" held after the Second World War.

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation." -- Herbert Spencer

Here is an excellent article from a criminal defense group on this topic, with a good recommended reading section.Detectives, police, etc are experts at getting confessions out of people, it's their job after all. Detectives may feel like they are not doing their job if they can't get a conviction, so if they only have one suspect they might do whatever they can to convince him/her to confess. Typically when we think of "Torture" the first thing that pops into our mind is physical beatings. However, psychological coercion may instead be an even more effective method of obtaining false confessions.

False Confessions

As we saw in the case of Amanda Knox, isolating, baiting, antagonizing, berating, and even befriending a suspect is likely to produce a confession or, at least, a statement that the prosecutor can use to place the suspect at the scene of the crime. Aside from considerations such as our desire as a civilized society to treat humanely those accused of crimes, the suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and the accused’s Sixth Amendment right to a lawyer, the tactics employed by seasoned homicide detectives should be condemned because they often produce unreliable or false confessions. Given the importance a jury is likely to attach to a confession, a false confession is a tragedy that should be avoided at all costs.

Unless his Massachusetts criminal defense lawyer has a comprehensive understanding of the interrogation tactics employed by detectives, the cross-examination skills to cripple the detective’s credibility, and the oratory ability to undermine the jury’s confidence in the integrity of the confession, the individual who has given a false confession will be convicted. No detective is ever going to admit that he shouted at a suspect, threatened to send him up the river, or ignored his pleas for food, access to a telephone, sleep, or to end the interrogation. Many, if not most, Massachusetts detectives are willing to put their credibility up against that of the individual accused of a serious crime. These detectives view their legal obligations to advise a suspect of his Miranda rights, to provide him with access to a telephone, and to cease questioning if the suspect asserts either that wants to discontinue the interrogation or that he wants a lawyer, as minor annoyances easily sidestepped. Detectives believe it is their job to extract a confession and to lie about the means they employed to get that confession. Few juries will credit the accused when he takes the stand to plaintively describe how the detectives forced him to confess to a crime he did not commit – especially not when the detective was so nice and impressive on the stand.

False confessions are not only bad for the accused, but disastrous for society. While it is unsettling that the innocent are convicted by shoddy, shortcut oriented police work, it is almost as troubling that, because of the false confession, the actual criminal goes free. The “confession” most likely, marks the end of the investigation. Following the “confession,” the detectives will dot an “i” or cross a “t,” but the investigation is, in any real sense, over. The person truly responsible for the crime will likely go undiscovered and unprosecuted. Even if the prosecutor and the police come to realize that the “confession” coerced from a suspect was bogus, that bogus confession makes it very difficult for the prosecutor to win a conviction against the real criminal. How can a jury find beyond a reasonable doubt that the real criminal committed the crime when another individual gave a confession after being advised of his Miranda rights?

Investigating a serious crime is hard, tedious work. It’s not like the one-hour weekly cop drama. Finding witnesses, gathering and preserving any physical evidence, and piecing together the case can take weeks, months or years. When interrogating a suspect, the detectives often do not know if the forensic evidence will reveal any connection between the suspect and crime. Afraid that they will end up with no evidence of guilt or to avoid unglamourous, boring police work, they go to extremes to wring a confession out of a suspect. It is easier, so much easier, and perhaps “safer” to trap a suspect in a small room and relentlessly question him until he either hangs himself with inconsistencies or cries out in fear, frustration, exhaustion, or desperation that he committed the crime. Case solved. No following up leads, no witness interviews, no stake-outs.

The exhausted, the isolated, the ignorant, the emotionally weak, and the frightened give false confessions. Dr. Mark Blagrove, a researcher and senior psychology lecturer at the University of Wales, states in a BBC news interview in October 2000, that sleep deprived individuals can be coached into giving affirmative answers to questions to which they could not possibly know the answers. Depriving individuals of sleep has for centuries been used by interrogators to elicit or coerce confessions – false or true. While the physical beatings may have disappeared, psychological coercion, a far more effective method, has proven a menacing and therefore worthy replacement.

The detectives interrogating the five youths accused of raping the victim in the Central Park jogger case, through the use of isolation, intimidation, threats and psychological coercion and manipulation, got not one youth, but all five youths to confess to the crime. The detectives likely congratulated themselves on their cleverness and refusal to take “no” for an answer. Unfortunately for these five youths, the victim, the detectives, and society as a whole, none of the five boys were involved in the rape. Not one. That the confessions were contradicted by the forensic evidence apparently, bothered the detectives and the prosecutors not at all. Meanwhile, the real culprit, Matias Reyes, remained at large and a threat to the city’s women. It was not until 13 years later, when irrefutable DNA evidence connected Reyes to the crime, that the prosecutors finally admitted the awful truth – that the boys had been coerced into confessing to a crime that they did not commit.

References

There is a wealth of information on false confessions in your local law library (usually located in the county’s main courthouse). Here is a list of suggested reading if you are interested in learning more about false confessions or the implantation of false memories:

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation." -- Herbert Spencer

In online debates, sometimes I notice revisionists making big mistakes. A notable example is when a false "confession" is posted, one of the first reactions is to suggest that the individual in question was tortured.

It rather appears that you then go ahead and list situations, treatments, behaviors, and tactics used against the accused that certainly could be described as torture.Torture comes in many forms besides beatings and testicle smashing.

I will not copy paste the entire chapter here, but the link above is from Peter Winter's 7th edition (2018) of his book "The Six Million: Fact or Fiction". Winter quotes Grubach who explains why Germans would "Confess" to crimes they did not commit in these post-war trials. Since the "Holocaust" was treated as a proven fact (mainly via "Judicial notice" and "denial" laws) claiming that an extermination of jews did not take place simply was not a defense in these trials. "It was out of the question for them to contest this in court, so they simply built their defense strategies accordingly."

For the most part were focused on their own acquittal, on a shorter prison sentence -- not defending the Third Reich from these monstrous charges against it. Therefore, "To the defendants it must have seemed the most expedient course not to dispute that the alleged murders occurred, only that they were involved in them."

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation." -- Herbert Spencer